How can I discuss anything with someone who has a totally
different perspective?

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of
them?
Abraham Lincoln

You might start by considering what
inspires you to
stick with a discussion. How could you help someone else find similar
inspiration?

What are your
goals? What
are the other persons goals? If you ask about a goal, and the other person
responds with a game-plan, you
might ask a follow-up question, such as "why is this important to
you?" or "what will happen if you don't do this?" Hopefully the
answer will bring you both closer to understanding the actual goal. If you
think you understand the actual goal, you could try rephrasing the response,
substituting a possible goal for their game-plan. If someone says, "I wish
we could ban all those attack ads!" rather than lecturing them about court
decisions or freedom of expression, one possible response is, "It sounds
like you're really frustrated by attack ads and want factual information to
help you make an informed choice. Is that correct?" This response
recognizes the desire to ban attack ads, but transforms the game-plan of
banning attack ads into a goal of factual information. Once you both understand
each other's actual goals, is there any common ground? If the common goal is
factual information, you can jointly brainstorm and explore several potential
game-plans.

If there isn't much common ground, what might inspire you to
change your mind? If there is an alternative, would you want to hear it? What
might inspire you to seriously consider this alternative? If an alternative
might satisfy everyone concerned, would you be willing to shift your own
position? What might inspire a change in the other person?

If you hear an
interpretation,
you might ask for a specific
observation
and consider other possible interpretations of that observation.

Why all these questions? Why not just lay out a specific
proposal?

An old adage says "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a
day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life." We could also say,
"Give people a solution and you might satisfy them for a day, or perhaps
start an argument lasting much longer. Teach people to find their own solutions
and satisfy them for life." Accepting a solution provided by someone else
might seem comforting, but blindly following may also have unpleasant
consequences. Once people become invested in one particular solution, it's much
more difficult for them to see alternatives.

If you start by choosing a destination, you can choose from
several possible routes, and are free to change routes along the way. If you
chose your destination well, you'll probably like where you are. If not, you're
free to choose another destination.

How can I relate to someone who shares nothing in common with
me?

There may be obvious differences, but two humans likely have much
more than DNA in common. When people hate each other more than they want a
solution, finding that common humanity is a big step toward resolving
differences. Could there be something positive you can both relate to, such as
a happy childhood moment, life-changing events, a mentor, role-model, or
important life-lessons?

Why not just debate a specific proposal?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the
real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
Plato
Ignorance is bliss.

Consider John Godfrey Saxe's poem
"The Blind Men and the Elephant". We could try to
settle the blind men's dispute with a debate followed by a vote. Each blind man
could make his case, summoning all the eloquence he can muster and supporting
his position with the "facts" of his observations. This approach
would likely produce a "winner", but does it determine once and for
all what an elephant really looks like? Should textbooks use this description
of elephants?

I prefer a system where people clarify shared goals and needs
before becoming invested in a particular solution. I benefit by learning from
others and by looking for something useful in the positions of others. Taking
ideas from various positions may lead to a new option that meets everyone's
goals. If you're inclined evaluate one specific proposal at a time, a good
place to start is with your own position. What inspires you to reconsider or
shift your own position? How well does your current preference meets your own
goals and the goals of others who prefer a different option?

What if a group can't find common ground?

A group goal doesn't have to include everything that each member
desires. Some members might ask for something at the expense of other members.
In these cases, it can help to look deeper at the goals. Do the members seeking
these benefits need the cooperation of the entire group or could they achieve
this goal on their own? Are there potential benefits for everyone in the group
such as an insurance policy or fire department that most will never need, but
could be extremely helpful to some? What are the likely consequences of not
receiving this benefit?

If some members don't get everything they'd like, is the proposed
goal a step in the right direction, creating a foundation for additional
changes? Would any members benefit by blocking the goal? If you're still stuck,
take a few minutes to reflect on why you joined the group and what you get out
of it. Groups often form to provide benefits to all members; pool efforts,
resources and knowledge; and pursue goals that would be difficult for
individuals to achieve on their own. Reconnecting with other members may
inspire you to shift your position in some way.

How does a computer count IRV votes?

Count the first-choice votes.

Total the votes for each candidate. A candidate with over
half the votes wins.

If there was no winner in step 2, one candidate with the
fewest votes loses. Add the next-choice votes to the current totals for the
remaining candidates. Go back to step 2.

Does IRV give some people two or more votes while others only
get one vote?

Each voting round counts everyone's vote once. If a voter's
preferred candidate is still in the race, their vote counts along with the
next-choice votes from voters whose candidates lost in the previous round.
Think about the visualization
example. Each time, we count everyone in every line. If there are three
rounds of counting, we count everyone three times. Can you point to anyone in
any line who didn't get counted or to anyone who got counted more times than
anyone else?

Why shouldn't the one with the most votes win?

If there are more than two candidates, it's likely that each
candidate gets less than half the total votes.

In a non-partisan election, the candidates don't actually run as
members of a party, but still share most of their party's values. The two
candidates in Party 1 have much more in common with each other than with the
Party 2 candidate. In the above example the Party 2 candidate wins even though
60% of the voters preferred a Party 1 candidate.

How could we improve Instant Runoff Voting?

Is there a way for minority party voters to help choose between
majority-party candidates?

The above diagram shows Party 1 with a 60% majority so we would
expect a winner from Party 1. One
goal of election reform
is representing the greatest possible number of voters. To help meet this goal,
Party 2 voters should have a say in which candidate from Party 1 wins the
election. We could recommend that Party 2 voters not vote for their own party's
candidate, but this sacrifices another goal of encouraging voters to vote for
their most-desired candidate. Refinements to IRV could allow Party 2 voters to
cast a first-choice vote for their own party, and still have a say in which
Party 1 candidate wins the election.

Ranked voting can lead to long ballots if there are many
candidates running for many offices. Voters willing to rank each candidate
could do so, but for those voters wanting to finish quickly, perhaps ballots
could add shortcuts such as "anyone from Party ___". The
vote-counting computer could use an appropriate process to evaluate that one
vote.

A separate runoff election gives voters the option to ignore most
candidates in the general election and focus on the two finalists in the
runoff. Election reform could be accompanied by reforms in how voters receive
and process information on the candidates, and how reporters do their jobs.

What is a "spoiler" candidate?

An independent or other-party candidate with little voter support
may share many values of another candidate considered "electable" or
a "serious-contender". Each vote for this "other" candidate
is one less vote for the "electable" candidates and may throw the
election to the least-desirable candidate.

In the above example, the "spoiler" shares much in
common with Party 1. If the spoiler wasn't in the race, most of the spoiler's
supporters would vote for the Party 1 candidate who would then win with over
50% of the vote. As it is, the candidate from Party 2 wins with 48% of the
vote.

What if there are multiple winners such as a city council or
school board?

If there are three interest groups, one with 40% of the voters
and two groups each with 30% of the voters, an entire city council or school
board could be chosen by 40% of the voters. If five candidates are elected by
district, each district contains about 20% of the county's voters. A majority
in each district is just over 10% of all voters in the city, county or
district. 11% of the voters could elect a representative objectionable to the
other 89%.

In the recent past, court decisions required that a minority
group have some representation on a five-member school board. In the above
diagram, the green group is 68% of the population and the yellow group is 32%.
How would you draw five districts, each with equal numbers of voters, to fairly
represent everyone?

How does proportional representation work?

If there are two interest groups electing a 5-member city
council, and one group includes 60% of the voters and the other group includes
40% of the voters, the majority group elects three of the five council members
with the other two council members elected by the minority group. It's
proportional because 60% of the voters elect 60% of the council members. If
there are five interest groups of equal size, there is no majority group and
each group elects one council member.

How do we determine the threshold to win a proportional
representation election?

One way to think about it is to imagine a tie. For one office, a
tie is two candidates each getting exactly half the vote. A candidate with over
half the votes breaks the tie and has more votes than all the other candidates
put together. If there are more than two candidates and no winner,
instant-runoff rounds reduce the number of candidates to two. For five council
seats, a tie is six candidates each getting exactly 1/6 of the vote so a winner
needs at least one vote more than 1/6 of the total to break the tie.

How does the computer count votes for proportional
representation?

Let's take the example of one candidate getting 4/6 of the
first-choice votes, but only needing 1/6 to win. Although 4/6 of the voters had
the same first-choice, they may have different second-choices. The computer
calculates a proportion of the extra 3/6 to transfer to each second-choice. If
the second-choice votes are evenly split between three other candidates, each
of the three second-choice candidates gets an extra 1/6 which is the 3/6
surplus split equally three ways. The extra 1/6 transferred to the three
second-choice candidates is enough for those candidates to also win. The 4/6
majority elected four council members as expected, and the total vote count for
all four winning candidates together is still 4/6: 1/6 for the first-choice
candidate and 3/6 split among the second-choice candidates. If the
second-choice votes aren't an equal three-way split, the computer calculates
the actual proportions and continues the process of transferring extra votes
and eliminating losing candidates with instant runoff rounds. By the end of the
vote count, we have five winners representing the various interests of most
voters.